Obamacare bill contains 3.8% tax on homes sales capital gains for high income earners

[SK in CV]

[quote=mike92104]
Do you have an estimate that you didn’t just pull out of your ass?[/quote]

No, it came from the same place yours came from.

[spdrun]

Why does the government need more and more and more funding year after year?

Because the liberals want it to actually provide useful services.

The conservatards, OTOH, bleed the coffers dry with things like the War on Drugs, incarcerating 1% of the population, and military adventures in Middle Eastern pestholes that aren’t worth a single cent. Personally, I’d be all for the people responsible for Iraq II being locked up for treason and perjury.

And yes, I realize that SD’s economy is heavily based on the military.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=spdrun]

The conservatards, OTOH, bleed the coffers dry with things like the War on Drugs, incarcerating 1% of the population, and military adventures in Middle Eastern pestholes that aren’t worth a single cent. Personally, I’d be all for the people responsible for Iraq II being locked up for treason and perjury.

And yes, I realize that SD’s economy is heavily based on the military.[/quote]

spdrun: If it were only true that the liberals weren’t just as complicit as the conservatives.

The creation of the modern US National Security State actually dates back to WWII and owes much to FDR and his support of the OSS (which eventually became the CIA.) FDR recognized as early as 1942 that the US would have to shift focus to the USSR after the defeat of the Axis powers and began tasking intelligence resources to the OSS in advance of the “Big Three” conference in Teheran in late 1943. FDR also understood the geopolitical/geo-strategic importance of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and began courting the Saudis around the same time: http://cambridgeforecast.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/fdr-meeting-with-saudi-king-ibn-saud-15-february-1945/

This meeting, ostensibly to discuss the Palestinian issue, also included FDR securing oil rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco) and sea lane rights for the US. These oil rights were deemed of such critical importance that FDR flew directly to this meeting following the Yalta Conference. The Saudi “special” relationship with the US has been in place for nearly 70 years.

The US “balance of power” relationship in these “Middle Eastern pestholes” included deposing the legitimately elected government of Iran in 1953 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d’%C3%A9tat) and enjoyed the full support from both Dems and the GOP. It also included US military and intelligence resources to odious regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

From there, we have LBJ’s massive expansion of CIA and NSA “shadow war” capabilities during the Vietnam War, including operations like the Phoenix Program and moving forward to the Carter Administration’s drafting of FISA (1978.)

Ronald Reagan was responsible for Iran-Contra, which included illegal drug and gun-running (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Seal) and additional CIA/NSA operations, such as maintaining the Noriega regime (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/28/us/bush-and-noriega-examination-of-their-ties.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) and all of Noriega’s little shenanigans. Here’s a fun trivia question: Who was the governor of Arkansas while millions upon millions of dollars of illicit drug gains were being laundered through Mena, Arkansas (the hub of the illegal drug and gun-running scheme)? I’ll give you a hint: It was the president who immediately followed Bush the Elder in the White House.

Which brings us to Slick Willie, who really had fun with things like creating the policy of extraordinary rendition, formation of the NSA Echelon/Carnivore program and the issuance of dozens of Executive Orders authorizing “off book” CIA programs designed to further circumvent the Constitution and avoid civilian/press/governmental oversight of said operations.

Of course, shit got really bad under Dubya, Tenet, Cheney and Alberto Gonzales (USAG) with Gitmo, the Patriot Act and creation of JSOC, along with warrantless wiretapping, further expansion of the rendition program and even more erosion of US civil liberties.

Which brings us at last to Obama, who campaigned on closing Gitmo, and dismantling the worse abuses of the Dubya cabal.

Did this happen? Nope. Obama did not dismantle anything and, in fact, continued to further expand and amplify the horrific and lamentable Bush II policies, as well as push for NDAA (Barack Obama signed this law, giving the president — for the first time in American history — the power to imprison indefinitely an American citizen “suspected” of “association” (without evidence) with terrorists. This fate comes without charge or trial.) and FISA 2008 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304.) In addition, under Obama, we now have unauthorized execution of US citizens without due process or any sort of judicial oversight and this little jewel which includes USAG Holder and DNI Clapper: On March 22, reports Engelhardt, Attorney General Eric Holder, our chief law officer, along with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Jr., agreed to “new guidelines allowing the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) … to hold on to information about Americans in no way known to be connected to terrorism — about you and me, that is — for up to five years.” Its previous limit was 180 days.

So, while it would be great if we had at least one political party in this country protecting our rights and liberties, the sad fact is that both Dems and Republicans have been cheerfully fucking us out of our (supposedly) Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties for the better part of 70 years.

I’d definitely agree on the treason charges as far as Dubya, Tenet, Cheney and Gonzales go, and I’ll raise you Obama, Holder, Clapper and Harold Koh (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/08/interview-with-harold-koh-obama-s-defender-of-drone-strikes.html), who was the guy vociferously taking Dubya to task on covert operations and is now fully supporting Obama’s use of the same tactics.

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Ben Franklin

[an]

[quote=spdrun]How do you propose to pay for government services? Magic?

Printing money is an unpredictable tax, and unpredictable inflation is bad for business. Not to mention that it favors spenders over savers, and Americans save too little as it is.[/quote]
Are those your only two suggestions (magic or tax the rich)? If you say yes, then there’s no point going forward.

[mike92104]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=mike92104]
Do you have an estimate that you didn’t just pull out of your ass?[/quote]

No, it came from the same place yours came from.[/quote]

http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

[an]

[quote=mike92104][quote=SK in CV][quote=mike92104]
Do you have an estimate that you didn’t just pull out of your ass?[/quote]

No, it came from the same place yours came from.[/quote]

http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html%5B/quote%5D
Those damn pesky numbers.

[scaredyclassic]

Doesn’t seem like any gain from a home should be tax free.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=mike92104][quote=SK in CV][quote=mike92104]
Do you have an estimate that you didn’t just pull out of your ass?[/quote]

No, it came from the same place yours came from.[/quote]

http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html%5B/quote%5D
Those damn pesky numbers.[/quote]

There’s some serious flaws in that calculation.

Just to name a few:

We hear all the time that half of Americans don’t pay any income taxes. The top federal rate is currently 35%. In order to use 17% for the “average”, that would mean that virtually every dollar of income that go to those that do pay taxes, must be subject to just under the maximum tax. Obviously, that can’t be true, since even high income taxpayers still pay lower rates on their income below the top tax bracket. In fact, most people who do pay taxes, don’t have a single dollar subject to the maximum rate.

Similar, but even more ridiculous on the state tax. The same 50% of taxpayers who pay no income tax referred to above, presumably pay little or no state tax, so including the maxiumum state tax rate as the average is absurd. It also fails to take into consideration the states that have no income tax or rates substantially lower than 10.1%.

All income is not subject to sales tax. In fact, no income is. Only spending. The caclulation in the link assumes 100% of income is taxed at a relatively high sales tax rate. Effectively impossible, since we’ve already deducted federal and state income taxes which can’t possibly be spent on taxable consumption.

The others aren’t near as egregiously wrong. But the last one is pretty funny. It lists estate, inheritance and gift as separate taxes. They are essentially the same thing. And amount to, on average, about $110 per taxpayer. That would be slightly over .1% of annual income for average taxpayers. Additionally, it lists something called “deficit allowance”. I’m reasonably sure there is no such thing as a “deficit allowance” tax.

But yeah, facts are pesky. And that link doesn’t contain many. It’s probably theoretically possible for some people to pay >50% in taxes. Whether it actually happens very often is pretty unlikely.

[spdrun]

Are those your only two suggestions (magic or tax the rich)? If you say yes, then there’s no point going forward.

Personally, I’m for universal, public-option health care, paid for by a percentage tax on ALL incomes. But that’s just me.

[an]

[quote=spdrun]

Are those your only two suggestions (magic or tax the rich)? If you say yes, then there’s no point going forward.

Personally, I’m for universal, public-option health care, paid for by a percentage tax on ALL incomes. But that’s just me.[/quote]
Personally, I like to leave it up to the people to decide whether they want health insurance or not. If they choose not to buy insurance, then they have to live with the consequences of not being treated in ER except for extreme circumstances.

However, I’m sympathetic to the idea of single payer system. If we do that, we should just extend Medicare to all and raise the Medicare tax for all to accommodate the extra cost of extending Medicare to all. There’s no need to have this ACA.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN]
Personally, I like to leave it up to the people to decide whether they want health insurance or not. If they choose not to buy insurance, then they have to live with the consequences of not being treated in ER except for extreme circumstances.

However, I’m sympathetic to the idea of single payer system. If we do that, we should just extend Medicare to all and raise the Medicare tax for all to accommodate the extra cost of extending Medicare to all. There’s no need to have this ACA.[/quote]

Why do we need to treat them in the ER even for extreme circumstances if they made the choice to go without insurance? Those extreme circumstances cost us the most bucks.

I agree single payer is the best system, but remember, that’s socialism!

[ocrenter]

[quote=spdrun]

Are those your only two suggestions (magic or tax the rich)? If you say yes, then there’s no point going forward.

Personally, I’m for universal, public-option health care, paid for by a percentage tax on ALL incomes. But that’s just me.[/quote]

Me too.

That would be impossible to pass in DC given the “class warfare” and “socialist agenda” type arguments against it. We are left with Obamacare as the only alternative. Which of course in its core is a Republican product the the GOP has rejected purely because Obama has his hands on it. So there are no other options, we have in essence painted ourselves into a retorical corner.

[spdrun]

Let CA and other blue states secede and run their own affairs. Yeah, yeah, civil war. Different times now, and I doubt if DC would want to risk a nuclear civil war anyway.

[DataAgent]

“If they choose not to buy insurance, then they have to live with the consequences of not being treated in ER except for extreme circumstances.”

No insurance and No cash = No service. Why should hospitals provide service under any conditions for people who refuse to take personal responsibiity for their probable needs? Gas, grass, or ass… nobody rides for free.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter]Why do we need to treat them in the ER even for extreme circumstances if they made the choice to go without insurance? Those extreme circumstances cost us the most bucks. [/quote]Because we’re not a bunch of heartless SOB? I’d like to see data behind what’s the % of expenditure for uninsured people between people coming for non real emergency vs extreme emergency. It will cost thousands, even if they come in for a common cold. I agree that extreme circumstances cost more per visit. However, I think the amount of people coming into the ER for non emergency out weigh the real emergency.

[quote=ocrenter]I agree single payer is the best system, but remember, that’s socialism![/quote]I never said it’s the best system. I just said I’m sympathetic about it and wouldn’t mind if it’s implemented. But I want the cost to be spread across everyone, so that everyone will pay for the service they will receive. Just like Medicare. Which is why I would rather have Medicare extended to everyone and increase the Medicare tax instead of the ACA.

What’s the point of tossing around the word socialism?

[Author]

Posts